Will it be a failure like WitP? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Skanvak -> Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/10/2009 8:39:57 AM)

Even if the game seems better than WiP. I am afraid that some needed UI feature for such game will be lacking. I stop playing WiP when the PBEM speed got longer than the turn theorical time, lack of statisical data user friendly. In brief, too much details so I felt that to have fun I need to have a team to manage my side of the war. Which led to the bigest lacking in such a monster game : No multiplayers for one side.

So I ask will this game have multiplayers for one side? That is the possibility for the player to allocate part of the front or selected unit to another player (a bit like Hitler gave only a limited number of unit to Manstein, it only at the end that Guderian was given command of the all front).

This features is the difference between a buy or ignore (unless turn are very short to play but how can it be with a big game as this...).



paullus99 -> RE: Will it be a fialure like WiP? (10/10/2009 9:51:14 AM)

Well, I can tell you - if you had the manage production on your side, it would take a heck of a lot longer to play.

I seriously doubt you'll be disappointed.



Terminus -> RE: Will it be a fialure like WiP? (10/11/2009 8:02:07 PM)

Wow, I never knew that WitP was a "fialure"...[8|] Always thought it was one of, if not the most successful game in the whole Matrix lineup, but I guess I, and all others who bought it, must be wrong.



Skanvak -> RE: Will it be a fialure like WiP? (10/11/2009 9:52:52 PM)

Question of point of view, I agree the engine is interesting BUT a monster game with huge micro management MUST support team play in a user friendly way, if not I don't buy period (I played WitP). If you cannot address my question, you should not answer.



paullus99 -> RE: Will it be a fialure like WiP? (10/12/2009 1:41:12 AM)

You might be able to set certain HQs to be controlled by the AI - but I seriously doubt you are going to have multi-player options on the same side.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Will it be a fialure like WiP? (10/12/2009 2:16:31 AM)

I have played WitP with an Allied commander on my side

he had his commands, and I had my commands, we shared resources when they came in, it worked well




Skanvak -> RE: Will it be a fialure like WiP? (10/12/2009 7:05:20 AM)

I know Sarge, I opened a topic on the subjects on the WitP AE thread, which such answer belongs (beside why every one try to say do without?). Here i am trying to find out if the game will be as deceiving for me as Witp was or not. So this is as much, is there too much micromanagement so I will be overhelmed like in WitP or no, that just a lot of counter but play fast.

One of the second reason I do that, it that Command and control of your general is important, I would have like to have game that allow that. Ie play in a chain of command. In case of conflict between the player or when playing with team mate you don't know it is better to have the computer enforce separation of what is given to who. That allow to have coordination error too (street congestion because two player send there unit to pass by the same highway). That give too a some power to the GHQ player as it will have in reality (Guderian have to asked to be put under Kluge command to use Kluge units). So I think that can be a plus for Monster Game with micromanagement.

Paullus, thanks to address my question, your answer are meaningful.



wworld7 -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/12/2009 8:27:02 AM)

It is your choice to pass on this game if you desire. As nothing I have seen so far leads me to believe that it will include the feature you want.

But I would advise you to wait until it comes out when you can read reviews and AARs that are written. Then you can judge whether the complexity level is too great for you.

As much as like WITP I am looking forward to this game.







cantona2 -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/12/2009 11:42:26 AM)

To the OP. WitP was and is not a failure.



Apollo11 -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/12/2009 4:04:31 PM)

Hi all,

WitP failure?!?! [8|]


WitP is one of the most (if not the most) successful games 2By3 made and Matrix produced - it can never ever be called a failure - it was outstanding success with strong support of users and developers even after so many years after initial release - a feat like that is something like that is truly rare in wargame industry these days!


If someone has personal dislike of some WitP features and/or interface it is personal thing that should never be generalized! [:-]


Leo "Apollo11"



Capt Cliff -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/12/2009 7:32:38 PM)

I agree with the orginator of the thread ... I passed on WitP because it's complexity not reflecting reality. I have Uncommon Valor and was frustrated no end with the lack of this or the BS work around to do that. So I saw no change with WitP so I passed on it.

As for WitE I think it's a diamond in the rough and might be Matrix's all time top seller, if done right.



Joel Billings -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/13/2009 5:28:47 AM)

I must tread carefully here since I fully understand what the original poster was getting at yet also want to acknowledge that WitP and now WitP AE are very successful games.

I enjoyed UV when working on it because I found it manageable. Because I understood the system, I was able to enjoy WitP, although I never had the time to play more than the smaller scenarios during development. If I had come into WitP cold, I probably would not have survived the encounter. Over the years I've been accused by some of dumbing down Gary's designs. I guess I didn't succeed with WitP. [:)]

The design goal for WitE was to create a playable yet very detailed game at a scale we've never done before. Because it's a game designed for land combat, it's by definition easier to play than UV/WitP. It's also been designed so that you can play and enjoy it without a lot of micro-management. On the other hand, those testers that have taken advantage of all that the system offers in terms of micro-management (leader transfers, support battalion reassignment, HQ formation integrity, air doctrine settings, and more), have been able to do better than those that ignored all of these items. The amount of micro-management that one can do in many areas is limited by Admin points, and the amount of admin points you have can be set as a game option, so for those players that agree on less micro-management they can decrease the amount of admin points both sides get. On the other hands, those that want lots of micro-management can increase the admin points. This provides some flexibility for even PBEM players.

I think the game will appeal to those that want the detail of WitP, but I also think that many of those turned off by the complexity of the WitP system would find WitE more accessible (although it's still a very complex game). I've found WitE very addictive and have enjoyed playing Barbarossa and Typhoon over and over during the past year. I'm looking forward to having time to play some of the other scenarios coming on line now.



ShaiHulud -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/13/2009 5:51:10 AM)

I'm one of those who has passed on WitP: AE because I no longer want to deal with minutae. Heck, When I read that the manual was well over 300 pages I was already decided. For the record, I don't get into the PBEM stuff. Always some hair-splitter with gamey tactics and exploits.

However, I AM looking forward to WitE, avidly. It has been about 4 generations of computers since someone (Grigsby, in fact) put out a great eastern front game.



Montbrun -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/13/2009 6:09:30 AM)

I don't think English is the OP's native language, so I gave him a pass on this one...



Rasputitsa -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/13/2009 11:28:45 AM)

Reading of the way Hitler ran his daily briefings, gathering together a few tanks in one position, improvising some infantry somewhere else, I like to have the micro-management capability available. But, generally the High Command responsibility is to oversee operations and set parameters, therefore, good AI house-keeping is useful. The widest options the developer can provide will give a game that will suit the taste of the maximum number of players. [:)]



Skanvak -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/13/2009 5:39:03 PM)

:) true that english is not my native language.

Thought, I wonder why there is so much opposition toward a build-in system for team play?

Actually A game like WitP with a Team play feature will interest me, but alone, I just don't have time even if the system is as detail as one can be. I should say that fanatical defence of a game just make me think that I am right :p

But again, wouldn't it be nice to have built-in team play for WitE? I have always wanted a game where possibility to play the chain of command was build in. I think that we could let the GHQ player do micromanagement as override (and upset is generals).

It seems that WitE would be more on the line of what I am willing to do alone.

Thanks Joel, Shai and Cliff for the insight.



Yank -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/14/2009 1:46:30 PM)

You're entitled to your opinion of course, as are the others who disagree with you. If we can't have a constructive debate on these boards then what good are they? But using a word such as 'failure' to describe WITP is a bold statement and bound to be controversial here. Nobody should be surprised that it triggered a reaction.



Skanvak -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/16/2009 7:09:39 AM)

Thought, there is one thing I don't understand : why the team play proposal is seen as an attack? Is there only me that want such a feature?



paullus99 -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/16/2009 2:00:42 PM)

I don't see it as an attack (though claiming WiTP is a failure will get you a knee-jerk reaction). Implementing a team hierarchy is just very difficult from a programming perspective (not to mention the synching issues that might develop, having to pass around save files from person to person to person).

It could also make a long game all that much longer, since you're waiting on turns from multiple individuals.



Zaratoughda -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/16/2009 5:09:47 PM)

Joel....

I am one of those that also passed on WitP due to it being... too much.

And I see you mention playing the Barbarosa scenario in WitE.. and my question is.... is this scenario one that ends around the time of the first mud (Oct 41 I believe)? If not, would be nice to have a scenario along those lines that is relatively short.... particularly given the number of counters at hand.

(Maybe a scenario that was the same also except ending after the Russian winter counter attack).

On a related issue.... Rob Kunz did a number of scenarios for TOAW (I believe there were like 8 of them..... crossing the Nemus, attcking Smolensk, the move south to Kiev, etc).... on the progress of AGC over the course of the first year.... and I talked to him a while back about doing the same for WitE and he said he would be interested (been waiting until WitE comes out to get back to him.... would offer myself as playtester). Now, his scenarios for TOAW were regimental level so we would have to see if they could be done with WitE (hmmm... might be difficult given weekly turns in WitE)... but if so would be relatively short low unit count scenarios which would appeal to those that really prefer the smaller scenarios.

How would something like this sound?

Zaratoughda

P.S. As far as the multi-player question is concerned.... I don't see why WitE can't be good for multi-player play as is. Unlike TOAW, you don't have all the units across the map lose MPs when there is a combat, so would seem to me that you could have, say an AGN player do his stuff, then a AGC do his stuff, etc. But, I haven't played the game so can't say for sure.



Joel Billings -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/16/2009 7:38:23 PM)

Implementing a special multi-player PBEM feature is not something we plan on doing. However, I don't see why a player couldn't save the game off mid-turn and pass it to another player to continue on with the turn. Given the HQ structure, it's very easy to split forces cleanly between players. I played War in the East (the SPI boardgame) as part of 2-3 player teams back in my uncle's garage in 1975. Why not do the same here. There are penalties for units from different formations participating together in an attack, so generally boundaries of army groups/fronts, armies and corps do play a part in the game (a good thing).

I'm not sure why special code would need to be written as long as the player's agreed not to touch each other's units.

As for the scenarios, we've been mostly playing the main Campaign 41-45 which we've been calling Barbarossa (just to confuse you [:)]). Few testers have gotten past spring 42 so far (although I think someone got to 43, and Gary has run AI vs AI further out and has done some limited work on the Campaign 1943-45 scenario). We plan on having a shorter scenario Barbarossa that will end in 1941. We've also been playing Typhoon, a scenario that runs from Sept 25 41 - Jan 8 1942. Our plan is to provide an editor with the game, and this editor will allow people to create smaller map scenarios (we're working on Uranus - Stalingrad) now. The weekly turns cannot be modded. German units can be easily broken into units that are 1/3 of a division. Other more detailed changes could be made as well. I don't see why these scenarios couldn't work out, as long as you can live with the weekly turns. We do hope that a corps of scenario designers/editors will develop additonal scenarios after release. We've recently added a limited ability for scenario designers to script opening AI moves (important for offensives), so that should help as well.



Skanvak -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/16/2009 8:13:22 PM)

I think that a specific will be able to improve several thing :
_ enforce the command chain, as I see it with a player having GHQ control
_ speed game, the GHQ player could define area of operation (cannot overlap) that could allow for pbem player to make their turn simutaneously when in PBEM (thought do I reckon that in IGOUGO, it is less appealing and need more synch than in a WEGO like WitP)
_ in TCP/IP it will allow the team to play simultaneously (best I think)
_ may be a system to decide of VP to choose who is the best generals (a competition in the team).

so for that I think that a code is needed.

Of course, you don't need code to do that, but we don't need code to play wargames or roll dices to begin with. Code is here to enhance what we can do without, isn't it?

PS : I can live with the weekly turn [:)]



Joel Billings -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/16/2009 9:04:56 PM)

I understand the desire to have something in TCP/IP. It's not going to happen in WitE. Too much time to code something like that, sorry. I understand the desire to have these things, it's just not something we can afford to spend time on given our resource limitations. But as I say, if you want to pass it around and agree on your own house rules, it should work fine.



Skanvak -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/16/2009 9:06:27 PM)

Thanks to have taken time to answer.



JeffroK -> RE: Will it be a fialure like WiP? (10/16/2009 11:08:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Wow, I never knew that WitP was a "fialure"...[8|] Always thought it was one of, if not the most successful game in the whole Matrix lineup, but I guess I, and all others who bought it, must be wrong.

What agree with Termie, had to happen some time!

Has the WITP & AE forum hit the 1 mill. mark yet?



JeffroK -> RE: Will it be a fialure like WiP? (10/16/2009 11:19:04 PM)

Back in the days of Board games, we had a variety of game scales, from SPI's WW2, AH's "Third Reich" at stategic levels with units representing Armies & Army Groups, down to monsters such as GDW's Drag Nach Osten & Unetschieden (apologies for spellin.)

Each had its champions and detractors, some want to get immersed into a game, which is possible in WITP or the new ED/BTR, others are happier playing at a different level. Some want to recreate & challenge history, see why a certain unit or weapon is effective, others want to play with grand strategy and dont care about the minutae. Problem here is keeping everyone happy which is never going to work.

I look forward to WITE hitting the shelves, not an East Front fan but that hasnt stopped me before.



Zaratoughda -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/17/2009 6:37:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Implementing a special multi-player PBEM feature is not something we plan on doing. However, I don't see why a player couldn't save the game off mid-turn and pass it to another player to continue on with the turn.


Hmmmm..... that is what I was trying to say <g>. Should not be any problem with WitE and PBEM.... no special code would need to be implemented.

As far as TCP/IP play.... a number of games tried that and it was not very successful. A matter of players all having to be online at the same time, waiting for the other players to do their turn, etc. PBEM was the better way to go.

I brought up Rob's scenarios in TOAW and they are actually division level with panzer and other elite units in regiments.... so, should be no problem there... and the scale is 10 km/hex which is not that different from the 10 mile (about 15 km/hex) scale of WitE. However, huge difference in the time scale, daily turns vs weekly turns. In WitE terms, this would be scenarios running between 1 and 6 turns. So, probably would have to combine some of them, with one essentially being AGC to the gates of Moscow, a second being the whole Kiev 'adventure', etc. I will drop him a line and see what he thinks.

Zaratoughda



PyleDriver -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/17/2009 7:17:00 AM)

Well, it isn't WitP. Joel wonders why I pear into 42 alot (Its fun). I play this game every day (4 hours or more), the only thing I'm concerned about is when my wife leaves. To leave me the %*^# alone. I'm at this now for 17 months. It doesn't get better...Just wait, its hard to wait, but its Gary at his very best...We have a very good team on this...



Skanvak -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/17/2009 8:08:27 AM)

quote:

Each had its champions and detractors, some want to get immersed into a game, which is possible in WITP or the new ED/BTR, others are happier playing at a different level. Some want to recreate & challenge history, see why a certain unit or weapon is effective, others want to play with grand strategy and dont care about the minutae. Problem here is keeping everyone happy which is never going to work.


I never asked to downscales those games. I think they will be better with a built in teamplay feature. And they are the size needed to be play in team play.

quote:

As far as TCP/IP play.... a number of games tried that and it was not very successful. A matter of players all having to be online at the same time, waiting for the other players to do their turn, etc. PBEM was the better way to go.


I spoke of TCP/IP for the team-play feature : ie to let 3 or 4 players move the counters at the same times. Which will be a simultaneous, not wait the other turn. AND TCP/IP is not needed for IGOUGO (2 players that is), but it is a good feature (like seeing the turn of your opponent as he play it) when you are both connected as it had some element that PBEM don't, beside it is definetly better than hotseat (I tried). (TCP/IP is a must for WEGO on the other hand)



wworld7 -> RE: Will it be a failure like WitP? (10/17/2009 1:42:26 PM)

Are we at the end of this thread yet?

It looks like questions were asked and the answers were givin.

Anything else is just fluff...

[:)][:)][:)]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875